Mark Weisbrot: 'His main constituency has always been the major media'

To understand President Obama's state of the union speech, you have to understand his political strategy. From the beginning of his 2008 campaign, his main constituency has always been the major media. His calculation has always been that he can win without the energy companies and even some other big campaign donors, but not if the mainstream media doesn't like him. So, a little bit of populism on the tax issues – for example, the Buffet Rule – is now acceptable, especially in the context of deficit reduction and Republicans' pro-1% extremism.

The other key constituency is the swing voters – he is taking Democrats for granted – who, for the last four decades, have been composed largely of white working-class voters. According to the leading Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, the speech was effective with swing voters. So, overall, a success for Obama.

And the people? There were a lot of specific proposals around energy, education, skills training, infrastructure, etc. But with the President committed to the silly goal of deficit reduction, with Republican obstructionism, and Obama's general lack of willingness to fight for human needs – remember his promises of a public option in health care reform? Or labor law reform? – I'm not holding my breath. Especially employment – can't do much about that without federal spending. And seniors, hold on to your wallet when he mentions "strengthening social security".

His foreign policy is much worse: "all options on the table" for Iran, which is code for the threat of yet another war. No commitment to get out of Afghanistan. When he talks about how "America is back" with "the enduring power of our moral example", I see images of US soldiers pissing on corpses, drones slaughtering civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, massacres like Haditha (with impunity).

"Above all," he tells us, "our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it." This could hardly be more false. America has lost more freedoms in the last decade, including Obama's presidency, than any other developed democracy in the world; and nobody fighting these unnecessary wars is defending our freedom.

Sarahi Uribe: 'An unavoidable gap between his rhetoric and the reality on immigration'

In a disappointing repeat of last year's address, President Obama had very little to say on immigration, an issue that is central to the country's future. President Obama boasted about putting more "boots on the border than ever before" while restating his support for the legalization of undocumented youth. His policies are tougher on immigration than any other president's in history, yet he still claims to support change.

Then, he went on to scold Congress for not working on comprehensive immigration reform and offered an intermediate solution: "Let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people." Which begs the question: why is his administration still deporting immigrant youth?

In a few short sentences, the president displayed an unavoidable gap between his rhetoric and the reality of his actions on immigration. We know from the last three years that the president's approach of criminalizing immigrants while suggesting their legalization, essentially trying to straddle two opposites, has failed. What we're left with is a million deportations and a debate that has drifted further to the right. Over 11 million undocumented Americans-in-waiting find their lives hanging in a precarious balance, and last night's speech did nothing to suggest a change from the worsening status quo.

Three things struck me about the state of the union address. First, President Obama focused on the US military at both the beginning and the end of his speech not as the world's mightiest fighting force, but as an example of a group of men and women who can work together effectively in the service of a common mission regardless of their political allegiances.

Second, the president actually embraced Madeleine Albright's formulation of America as the "indispensable nation"; in Obama's formulation, "the one indispensable nation in world affairs". But all the examples he cited of US indispensability go to the power and value of US diplomacy more than US troops – a theme consistent with his claim regarding the intervention in Libya that it was the US that created the "conditions and the coalitions for other nations to step up".

Third, as I hoped, the president invoked the fall of Gaddafi as an important step forward, and stood forthrightly for "transformation" across the Middle East in the service of "the rights and dignity of all human beings". He did not mention the unshakeable US commitment to security of Israel in the context either of the Arab awakening or of the threat from Iran, but rather with regard to the strengthening of America's global alliances. The administration, abroad as at home, has cast its lot with change.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University and was formerly director of policy planning in the State Department

DeeDee Garcia Blase: 'Hispanics are tired of the immigration issue being used as a political football'

A robust President Obama energized Latinos with his bold mention of the Dream Act and comprehensive legal immigration reform. Obama recognized the entrepreneurialism Hispanics bring to the American economic table when he stated: "let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country." Immigrants often create companies that are multinational from day one adding to the much-needed jobs we depend on.

It is now up to Latinos to up the ante. We must provide political cover to all immigrant-friendly politicians during the 2012 elections in key high Hispanic populated states where Latin political leverage is best. We must identify key politicians who are blocking immigration reform policies and help to replace them – the first person we ought to look at is Texas Congressman Lamar Smith.

Hispanics are tired of the immigration issue being used as a political football, and we can no longer wait for a political savior to do what "we the people" should have been doing all along – vote in droves. Our vote is our respect and we are in the position we are in because we have not voted more assertively. This will no longer be the case in 2012, when Latinos are encouraged and motivated to vote for those who are voiceless.

Teresa Wiltz: 'I like that he took on the inequities of the tax system'

The president did come out swinging Tuesday night, but ended up singing. He took, to quote the great Kool Moe Dee, the "how ya like me now" approach, spelling out his accomplishments: War in Iraq over, check. Osama bin Laden dead, check. Auto industry back on track, check. Three million jobs created in the last 22 months, check. "America," he announced, "is back."

It was an optimistic speech, a populist speech. I like that he took on the inequities of the tax system, quoting Warren Buffett's assertion that he shouldn't pay less in taxes than his secretary does. (Cue audience shot of said secretary.) I liked that he dismissed Republican charges of "class warfare" and "envy".

The good: hitting companies that outsource labor with a tax penalty. Advocating for undocumented students who, he says, should be given a path to citizenship. Help with refinancing for besieged homeowners.

The not so good: vague plans for job creation – and no mention of the growing number of American contingent workers toiling "permalance", without benefits or a safety net.

By the end, he was practically singing Kumbaya in a "can't we all get along?" moment, describing how the Seals who took down bin Laden could only do it because they knew they had each other's back. It's not likely to put a halt to partisan bickering, but I'm betting that "America, I got your back" is going to be Obama's rallying cry on the 2012 campaign trail.

Teresa Wiltz is a journalist, formerly at the Washington Post, and senior editor for the Root

Jim Geraghty: 'A series of pretty promises that are usually broken and often unrealistic'

I thought Obama's address was awful, but I doubt I was the target audience.

The state of the union is sort of the annual presidential New Year's resolution, a series of pretty promises that are usually broken and often unrealistic. Obama may get a bump in his numbers from this, but that's because most viewers listen to it (and the subsequent coverage) as background noise and don't think too hard about how such ideas will work or be enacted.

How will the federal government effectively end high school dropouts again? Why is he telling me that the bailout of GM worked, and that the era of bailouts is over? Why is he so certain that the past rounds of red tape were wasteful and counterproductive, but these new ones will be free of the same flaws?

He closed by citing the US Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden, and concluded:

"You can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's someone behind you, watching your back. So it is with America … This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard."

Of course, the Seals are set up for a completely different purpose than the highest levels of our government. Dissent and debate on a Seal mission during a mission will get them killed. The folks here and abroad who dismissed George W Bush as an ignorant warmonger will probably unthinkingly applaud a Democratic president urging the nation to emulate, as a role model of unity, a group of men who, operating in secret, will ruthlessly and skillfully kill for him.

Jane Eisner: 'The assassination of Osama bin Laden was a powerful bookend to the speech'

A Republican commentator complained of the president's speech, just after its emotive conclusion, that all Barack Obama wants to do is redistribute wealth, to spend more of other people's money, to take from those who have and give it to those who don't. Actually, what the president did in this overly detailed, but ultimately satisfying state of the union is show just why the federal government needs to spend more of our money, and why those fortunate enough to have a lot of it need to share it with those who don't.

He made the right case for a fairer system, especially in his defiant promise to reform the tax code. (I only hope that, this time, he won't back down in his negotiations with Congress.) And he skillfully used historical examples of ambitious, successful government spending to argue for that kind of intervention in the essential areas of education, energy and infrastructure.

By my clock, it took him nearly an hour to broach foreign affairs, offering no surprises as he sped through the list of necessary subjects. Besides the clever (and deserved) use of the assassination of Osama bin Laden as a powerful bookend to the speech, this was clearly a domestic oration. For a president who has been criticized for not focusing more on jobs and the economy, can you expect anything else in an election year?

Tuesday's state of the union address didn't stake out a grand, overarching vision. What it did accomplish, however, was address all of the various groups that needed reassuring in this election year. November, after all, will be a turn-out game.

In subtle but clarion ways, Obama underscored the fact that, as president, he can only do so much. He needs Congress' help in passing and enacting many of the policies, micro and macro, that he outlined in last night's speech. Take immigration, which got its customary section in last night's address. He hit all the predictable notes – a nod to securing the border and decreasing illegal crossings (as if all undocumented people come from Mexico), the threat of deportation that people like me face, even though we grew up in America and are American in all but papers.

As he did last year, he tied education and the economy to immigration, before saying, "Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away."

We've heard this before. Overhauling immigration was one of Obama's top priorities upon arriving in the White House. He has not delivered. Nor has Congress. Immigration, yet again, becomes another campaign issue.

Jose Antonio Vargas is a journalist and founder of Define American, which seeks to elevate the conversation around immigration